
##4001062 Section : Creative Controversy <p> In keeping with the policy of the Humanist to accommodate the diverse social , political , and philosophical viewpoints of its readers , this occasional feature allows for the expression of alternative and dissenting views on issues previously broached within these pages . <p> FEW VALUES , if any , have more widespread acceptance today in the United States than tolerance . Religious tolerance is especially lauded and has had its staunch supporters in this country since early in the colonial period . Today , although some advocate it more strongly and more often than others , people of nearly all beliefs and political persuasions can be heard arguing in favor of tolerance . The principle seems inherent in a pluralistic , democratic society . <p> In its most basic sense , tolerance means respect for the practices and beliefs of others -- whether or not we agree with them . What thinking person could disagree with such an idea ? No community or culture could exist , and neither could coexist , without some tolerance . A major reason the idea has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect for others . <p> Those today who most frequently and strongly advocate tolerance usually do so based on the idea that truth is relative ; no one person , group , or culture -- the argument goes -- has a monopoly on truth , so one can believe what one wants but can not impose that belief on someone else . By maintaining your own truth without seeking to force it on others , you are showing the respect characteristic of a tolerant person . <p> This relativism is applied in many areas . We say that what is right for the Christian is n't necessarily right for the Muslim , Buddhist , agnostic , and so on . Similarly , the tolerant view on abortion says it 's fine to believe abortion is wrong but it 's intolerant to tell other women it 's wrong for them . Or if you are against interracial marriage then do n't marry someone from a different race , but do n't try to stop someone else from doing so . The tolerant view says that if you find homosexuality unappealing then do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being homosexual . <p> At first glance these arguments are appealing ; so apparently respectful of others , they appear obviously valid . They seem democratic in the sense that they endow equality of opinion and preference . They seem self-effacing in that they claim your belief is as legitimate as mine . They seem impartial . So on the surface toleration appears to be a fair-minded , democratic , modest approach that looks at the world based on the ideal of respect for others . No wonder its virtues are so frequently acclaimed . <p> But might there be a few problems in this outlook ? For one , at some level it seems to tell people how they can and can not act -- for example , by saying one can disagree with abortion but can not stop others from having one . This circumscription of behavior can be especially problematic in the case of evangelical Christianity , an area in which tolerance is perhaps most often discussed . <p> Evangelicalism is the belief that salvation is the most important moment in life and that leading others to salvation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , fine , believe in Jesus but do n't try to impose your belief on me . But if you take the proselytizing out of evangelicalism -- which is what advocates of tolerance desire -- what exactly are you tolerating ? Not much . Instead you are telling people they must act in accordance with your relativistic outlook . <p> A typical expression of this view occurred a couple years ago in a Washington Post story on the decision of the Southern Baptist Convention " to intensify its efforts to convert Jews to Christianity . " Rabbi Eric Yoffie , president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and frequently quoted in the Post , decried this " direct attack , " saying , " We 've been moving toward a position where all major faiths recognize the fundamental integrity of each others ' beliefs . " Well , as stated in the article , Southern Baptists believe that " all people need a personal vital relationship with Jesus Christ . " Where is Yoffie 's respect for , his tolerance of , the belief of those fifteen million people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not act -- in essence saying that he 'll be glad to tolerate evangelicals as long as they do n't evangelize . <p> Conservative Christians have often pointed out this double standard , arguing that fair-mindedness should be applied to their beliefs as well as everyone else 's . I believe they have succeeded . The media today seem much more objective toward , more tolerant of , evangelicals than ten years ago . In fact , traditional Christians have succeeded so well that they often condemn even simple criticism as an act of intolerance . They have been effective in part because they have seized on tolerance 's internal contradiction of telling people how to act in the name of being hands-off . <p> In addition to telling people how to act , the ethos of tolerance also tells people what they should and should n't think . First , you should think your truth is relevant to you but not necessarily to someone else . Second , you should realize that no single group of standards is valid for everyone . Third , you should believe it is inappropriate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do . <p> Not only do these three ideas violate the avowed standards of tolerance by telling people how to think , they are also self-contradictory . Supposedly principles of relativism , they are all absolute , all pertinent everywhere at all times . In other words , they all exemplify the very thing they refute . The first is a truth applicable to everyone ; the second is one standard that encompasses all other standards ; the third says you 're wrong to tell me I 'm wrong . <p> However wonderful it sounds then , in practice , tolerance as it is espoused most commonly today seems to me a specific , absolute world view -- one that seeks to impose its way on everyone . In this world view there are clear ideas of right and wrong ; but calling them right and wrong contradicts the relativistic , self-effacing , impartial notions that supposedly govern thought and action . As a result , the issue is side-stepped : rather than saying I 'm right and you 're wrong , I have to say I 'm tolerant and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears in another Washington Post article by Donna Britt . A regular columnist for the newspaper , Britt wrote a thoughtful and sometimes poignant article about the effects of television on young people . In discussing the difference between Teletubbies and South Park , Britt asks , " Why do we show America 's tiniest children worlds glistening with love and tolerance , and so often older kids the opposite ? " <p> The rest of the article is largely about why we should n't tolerate South Park . " Some things , " Britt argues , " should n't be said out loud in public . " Is n't this exactly what Jerry Falwell says about Teletubbies ? Falwell does n't want to tolerate indications , however subtle , of homosexuality ; Britt does n't want to tolerate publicly aired adult jokes . <p> The rejoinder Falwell constantly hears -- if you do n't like it , change the channel -- is conspicuously absent from Britt 's article . Many defenders of tolerance , I believe , would say this is because Falwell takes exception to something harmless ( even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the other hand , has characters who express intolerance of ethnic and religious differences . But this is exactly the point : the argument is over right and wrong , over different definitions of what is positive and what is harmful . <p> The fact remains that both Falwell and Britt are objecting to what they find offensive . Falwell at least admits he 's arguing about right and wrong . Too often , supporters of tolerance dodge this fact . In essence , however , they are saying that some things are okay and some are n't and they 'll tell you which are which -- Teletubbies okay ; South Park not -- and if you disagree , it 's not that they 're right and you 're wrong but that you 're intolerant . <p> Aggression in the guise of tolerance has been a common feature in the United States since its inception . Maryland is often lauded for being the first colony to pass legislation allowing freedom of religion . But the 1649 Act of Toleration was an assertive measure , a preemptive strike enacted by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . This minority was n't saying , " We will tolerate you , " but , instead , " You have to tolerate US . " <p> A similar thing happened in Massachusetts in the late seventeenth century . As the colony became more diverse -- as Quakers and Baptists grew in numbers , as a group of merchants arose with inclusive standards of church membership and with ties to English Anglicans -- many began to desire an end to Congregational Puritanism 's dominance in politics and religion . British rule passed an act of religious toleration and made Massachusetts drop the requirement of church membership for voting and holding office . <p> It is just as valid to call this an act of intolerance . It was an assertive measure aimed at old-style Puritans , telling them how they could and could n't act . In essence , the Crown was saying it would no longer tolerate Puritans ' persecution of Baptists and Quakers and exclusion of liberal Congregationalists and Anglicans . Was it a good thing -- was it right -- that Puritans were made to stop boring holes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course . But was it tolerant ? Not any more than it was intolerant . <p> Which brings up a more fundamental point : intolerance is just as important and just as necessary as tolerance . You 'll not hear anyone extol the virtues of intolerance , unless , say , politicians speak of drug offenses . But advocating tolerance without qualification is ludicrous . <p> Do I tolerate my child 's world view by letting her eat all the candy she wants ? Do I tolerate female genital mutilation , a long-standing tradition in many cultures ? If it 's 1960 , do I tolerate the cultural tradition of systematically denying civil rights to African Americans ? Should we tolerate a woman getting paid seventy cents for doing the same work for which a man gets a dollar ? These questions are presented in the extreme , but this is because tolerance is touted so broadly and praised so absolutely . There are all kinds of things we do not and should not tolerate -- and for good reason . <p> The issue , then , is not that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't tolerate . The question -- like it or not -- is what is right and what is wrong . And when we admit this , we have to admit we 're on the same playing field as fundamentalists , chauvinists , and racists . Racism , for example , is wrong , but not any more intolerant than anti-racism ; the racist wo n't tolerate black equality , and I wo n't tolerate racism . <p> Tolerance , then , as praised and practiced by those who preach it most , is often a mask for aggression -- an attempt to impose a fairly specific world view on society . It may be a good world view , but it is n't more tolerant than any other . <p> This is why one so often hears it said that people who advocate tolerance are the most intolerant . I do n't believe this to be the case , but I do believe the criticism has validity in that it points to a rather glaring hypocrisy : the hands-off , permissive connotation in the word is the very mechanism that triggers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , much of what passes for tolerance epitomizes the exact thing it condemns . <p> By no means am I suggesting that tolerance is unimportant and should be discarded . Although most of this article has been criticism of an element of discourse I find too prevalent -- especially in the media and academia -- it was my own search to understand real quality tolerance that led to the criticism in the first place . In our diverse society , tolerance is a positive value that allows us to minimize our differences and to gain strength from them . <p> But we must have the integrity to acknowledge that tolerance itself , or the lack thereof , is not the crux of the matter . The real question is what to tolerate . In fact , simply admitting that this is the question is an act of tolerance ; rather than trying to snatch the moral high ground by talking tolerance/intolerance , it allows that even fundamental disagreement may -- not necessarily , but may -- occur on the same moral plane . <p> In accepting this principle I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than wag my finger in their face for trying to impose their beliefs on me . They are , after all , acting out of what they believe is a concern for my spiritual well-being . It is remarkable how tolerant a fundamentalist -- or just about anyone else , for that matter -- can become if his or her own opinion is offered a little respect in the first place . In the end , perhaps tolerance is much more valuable and effective when judiciously applied and when practiced instead of preached . Editor 's note : <p> The Southern Poverty Law Center , in the interest of reducing racism and ethnic conflict , offers a highly regarded public school curriculum entitled " Teaching Tolerance . " Yet this same organization seeks new laws against certain intolerant groups . Is n't that showing intolerance of intolerance ? And is n't that a contradiction ? Dr. Hazell explores this sort of question -- arriving at some counter-intuitive conclusions . <p> By J. Eric Hazell <p> <p> Eric Hazell has a Ph.D . in early U.S. history from the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor of English and history . He is also a historian and archivist at the Naval Historical Center in Washington , D.C. , and co-authored " Panacea or Pipe Dream ? Contracting Out Naval Research and Development Since World War II , " which will appear in a forthcoming issue of U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings . <p> 
##4001063 Section : THE POPULAR CONDITION <p> I 've never been much for elaborate conspiracy theories , but sometimes I have to step back and wonder . If I were a modern-day despot in the United States who wanted to prevent the kind of discontent that might lead to revolt , what better system could I ask for than the one presently at work ? <p> In U.S. schools , the curriculum is -- with few exceptions -- a blissfully romantic inculcation of " the American way . " Textbooks rarely impugn anything " American , " and when they do it is usually a qualified admonishment of " a great man " or " necessary " conquest . Thus , even after it was verified that Thomas Jefferson did more than write great documents at his slave-run Monticello , the majority of the nation 's writers were quick to race to the icon 's rescue , exhorting us to never forget the majestic democracy he and his fraternity designed . The result is that , almost two centuries after his death , we still fail to remember or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propagated while ruling over the fledgling nation . <p> Of course , the unabashed campaign to promote patriotism and satisfaction with the status quo is certainly not limited to the peccadillos of the framers of the Constitution . When U.S. students study the Spanish-American War , are they simply inundated with heady stories about Teddy Roosevelt 's heroic charge up San Juan Hill or is there time to talk about the genocide that quashed the independence movement in the Philippines ? Is there time to broach the topic of imperialism and how the propaganda mill in the United States worked to promote a singular truth in citizens ' minds ? History , Howard Zinn reminds us , is not an objective science but a human construct -- an artifact that is created as a way to shape opinion and truth . " There is always a tendency , " Zinn says in his 1990 book The Politics of History , " to see history from the top , " but such an approach invariably leads to passivity , to an acceptance of the status quo as the best of all possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience , they enter the " real world " with a plethora of lofty stories about our venerable heroes and storied history . As the officially ascribed " good guys , " Americans are the survivors of a heroic battle with the iniquitous forces of communism . Precious little is written about the United States ' pandering to big business , the orchestrated fight against organized labor , or the concerted effort to keep minorities in their place . Such omissions lead to romantic monoliths , to myths about the Roaring Twenties or the blissful fifties . Few of us ever hear about segregation or the unequal tax burdens imposed upon the poor and middle class . " The class nature of the American economy is reflected in the tax structure , but this is hidden from those without time or training to study taxes , " argues Zinn . <p> After graduation from school -- where students have been given a generous helping of the superiority of capitalism , Christianity , and the rightness of American political wars -- one moves on to a virtual deluge of mind-numbing routines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be specially designed to preclude any critical analysis or political action . Consider , for example , the lives of average college students who enter the classroom with aspirations of learning to reflect upon and dissect their world . <p> I recently did a series of informal surveys with my sophomore writing class , asking them to evaluate a societal injustice they would like to expose and possibly remedy . I suggested topics like racism , classism , gender bias , or the moronic content of day-time television -- anything was an option . Incredibly , a majority came to me with few ideas about what to write . When I devoted a class session to the reality of an unequal tax system , students defended the idea of a flat tax , knowing that they -- as struggling students -- would clearly be the victims of this regressive plan . Later , when I broached the idea of racism among the students , even the African Americans waxed rhapsodic about the empowerment they felt . This , it should be noted , while affirmative action was being dismantled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ <p> The United States , for most of my students , is a curious utopia -- and this , I believe , is a result of a system that promotes passivity , intellectual indolence , and self-loathing , a system that massages its populace with mindless talk shows and courtroom melodramas where rather pathetic people are displayed for derision and pseudointellectual analysis . It really matters little whether one views the exploits of Ricki Lake , Jenny Jones , or Jerry Springer . In each case , one is confronted with a deluge of tawdry melodramas , devoid of meaning and intended only to titillate and lampoon . The upshot for those who crowd the television for these travesties is an acceptance of their place as silly and rather ridiculous people . <p> Yesterday it was the entertaining fight between unfaithful lovers . Today it is the struggle over interracial relationships . Tomorrow it will involve sordid details about women fighting over other women 's husbands . Together they fulfill a need to wallow in a collective misery while reinforcing the insignificance of the people whom they exploit . This , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machine that begins in elementary school and runs unabated throughout one 's life . It is an education not unlike the racist minstrel shows , where African Americans were made the butt of jokes and the knowledge of their marginal status was reinforced . The only difference is that today it is in a courtroom and it is Judge Judy who is pontificating about the " sad lifestyle " of one of her victims . <p> Continued exposure to such mindless entertainment , argues Herbert Marcuse , becomes a kind of drug or candy for the oppressed populace -- replacing feelings of discontent with a deluge of mind-numbing situation comedies , sporting events , and glitzy commercials . In short , the media culture discourages the masses from thinking beyond the confines of the present by sweeping them up from reality and delivering them to a land where hegemonic ideas about wealth and beauty are seemingly just beyond their fingertips . In his 1968 book One Dimensional Man , Marcuse suggests , " The irresistible output of the entertainment and information industry carry with them prescribed attitudes and habits , certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less pleasantly to the producers and , through the latter , to the whole . " Propaganda in the Schools <p> All of this inculcation begins quite innocently , as kids march into kindergarten classrooms and begin to be acclimated into the " system . " Teachers stand before the class and do what teachers have clone since the first Puritan school : indoctrinate and socialize . Education is supposed to be objective and disinterested , but in fact it is quite effective at promulgating very specific ideas about discipline and " truth . " <p> The act of reading is an interesting example . For centuries , not only the content but the method of reading has been scrupulously monitored by conservative politicians who understand the significance of reading to the perpetuation of national obedience . If conservatives have their way , students will consequently learn valuable lessons about the top-clown process of U.S. education , its teacher-centeredness , and the dependence they should feel for an authority figure . <p> Today , a popular argument among conservative educators like E. D. Hirsch is for " cultural literacy , " @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mores of the educated white elite . It is a plan that conveniently makes Shakespeare cultural literacy while rendering the practices and literature of other communities wrong or inferior . Again , the scheme is clear : if the power elite can standardize their way of life and make the subjugated aspire to reach it as a sign of success , they can rule by intellectual oppression rather than military force . Thus , when Hirsch speaks of cultural literacy , he dresses it in garb that makes it seem less like oppression than altruism . <p> In a recent essay on the question of multiculturalism and bilingual education , Hirsch chooses to call his goal to standardize the curriculum " Americanization " -- a curriculum that is " rudderless " and " romantic . " In his January/February 1999 Clearinghouse essay " Americanization and the Schools , " Hirsch suggests that " all American children need to be Americanized in a deeper sense than merely learning common American attitudes and lingo from T.V. and the streets " ; they need a " common school " where universal sentiments are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ <p> Attractive sounding ? Of course . But when readers probe beyond the egalitarian rhetoric , they find a mission to standardize the public school in a way that would virtually silence the divergent voices that populate our schools and animate our nation . <p> When Hirsch speaks of common knowledge as a way to foster scholastic success , he is really asking that schools institutionalize a system that replicates and enforces his values : traditions and mores of the white elite male . For Hirsch and his friends , education is not a process that is socially constructed by real people but a law or creed that is given to passive recipients for their benefit . Like the television viewer , then , learning becomes less about discovery than listening . It centers on obedience and fealty , submission and docility -- all qualities that work well in a despotic system . <p> Thus , one is not surprised to see Tom Monaghan , the founder of Domino 's Pizza , donate $50 million of his fortune to establish a law school in Michigan that teaches " objective verities " @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the powerful attempting to establish and institutionalize their version of truth . <p> Indeed , the key to controlling people is not through overt repression but through subtle persuasion . Hegemony is best practiced through official and supposedly objective channels , such as school , church , and law . When the dominant group can successfully persuade the subjugated that they deserve their inferior status -- and that it is supported by holy works , academic scholarship , and legal decisions -- they tend to become more docile and malleable . They tend to see such repression as inevitable rather than unjust . Thus , as Karl Marx and Frederich Engels argue in their 1974 book The German Ideology , " A ruling class is compelled ... to represent its interest as the common interest of all members of society ... to give its ideas the form of universality , and represent them as the only rational , universally valid ones . " <p> And so , in a society that searches for ways to cosmetically change oppression and inequality so that they seem less like injustice and more like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nietzsche 's caveat that " there are no truths , only interpretations . " Equally significant is iconoclastic educator Paulo Freire 's call for all people to engage in praxis so that theories of liberation and democracy become a reality rather than simply an essay in an academic journal . <p> Perhaps all this does n't constitute a conspiracy , but it has all of the trappings of a despotic system -- one that maintains power by misinformation and control , something that is too often blamed on those other nations U.S. history books love to demonize . The question now is how can we identify and change the injustices if we are programmed to accept them ? <p> By Gregory Shafer <p> <p> Gregory Shafer is a professor of English at Mott College in Flint , Michigan . <p> 
##4001064 The Earth becomes home to six billion humans this year . In 1960 , there were three billion and in 2030 there could be eight billion to nine billion . With nearly all the increase occurring in the poor countries of <p> Africa , Asia , and Latin America ; with 585,000 women dying annually from complications of pregnancy and childbirth ; and with twenty million unsafe abortions taking place each year , governmental members and nongovernmental organizations ( NGOs ) of the United Nations decided to take action and organized the UN International Conference on Population and Development ( ICPD ) . <p> The initial gathering was held in Cairo , Egypt , September 5-13 , 1994 . By all accounts the conference was a remarkable achievement , hailed as a model of cooperation between UN officials , governments , NGOs , and aid agencies . Remarkably , some 179 nations reached consensus on a progressive sixteen-chapter Programme of Action . Some twenty delegations , however -- cardinal among them the Holy See ( as the Vatican is called at the UN ) and some Muslim countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . These concerns were based upon institutionally held religious convictions . <p> According to the Women 's Environment and Development Organization , the ICPD Programme represented " a seismic shift in the thinking on health and population policies . It challenged traditional family-planning approaches that focused on averting births rather than human well-being . It affirmed women 's unencumbered right to reproductive choice and freedom . " A few specifics of the Programme include : integrating population , production , and consumption dynamics into sustainable development policies providing universal reproductive health services by 2015 developing policies and programs that support sexual education prevention of the abuses of women and girls , including prostitution and female genital mutilation the use of technology and international cooperation to foster science-based development policies the education and empowerment of women to make reproductive decisions . <p> The numerous action recommendations situated reproduction in the wider context of economic opportunity and exploitation . The Programme clearly demonstrated the philosophy that individual moral action must be understood as the result , rather than the cause , of cultural , political , and , above all , economic policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow-up conference was scheduled , to be held June 30-July 2 , 1999 , at UN headquarters in New York City . In preparation for Cairo Plus Five , a forum was held at the Hague March 22-April 1 of this year . It was there that the first serious signs of trouble surfaced and almost sabotaged Cairo Plus Five . Although delegates were n't supposed to renegotiate the text of the Programme of Action , a coalition of Catholic and Muslim states effectively tried to do just that . Throughout the review , the Holy See , Algeria , Argentina , Chile , Guatemala , Egypt , Libya , Morocco , Nicaragua , and Sudan raised arguments and objections about the terms choice , sex education , and especially parental consent . Most of their objections dealt with proposals on the health impact of unsafe abortion , the provision of sexual health education and services for adolescents , and safe and effective contraceptive and family-planning methods . China and some of its allies also raised objections to parts of the Programme . <p> Frustrated delegates , especially NGO observers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this small band of right-wing states that had raised the same objections at the 1994 gathering . Unless consensus could be reached on a final document to be presented in New York , Cairo Plus Five would fail and all the advances made previously would be lost . Because the consensus method of decision-making ( in contrast to voting ) was used , it became possible for a small group of delegates to prevent the overwhelming majority from proceeding with the preparation of a final text . In addition , more than 100 representatives from conservative and anti-choice organizations -- including the International Right to Life Federation ( a Rome-based coalition ) , Opus Dei , Human Life International , and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute -- lobbied government delegates in an effort to derail the Programme of Action . <p> They almost succeeded . The Hague forum failed to produce a final document by its March 30 deadline . The deadline was extended to April 1 , but it did n't help . Things became so strained that a demonstration -- a violation of traditional " gentlemanly " @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . If nothing improved , Cairo Plus Five would fail . <p> Immediately upon my arrival in New York on June 30 at Cairo Plus Five ( I was serving as an alternate delegate for the American Humanist Association ) , I sensed something was terribly wrong . I had been attending UN conferences as an NCO delegate for various organizations since 1978 and could tell something was up . I soon learned that a final Programme of Action was still being negotiated and that a group of Catholic and Muslim delegations was working to impede the progress of the conference . <p> Many of the 400 registered NCO delegates ( representing 300 organizations ) were furious , and an air of desperation could be felt . " We might lose everything , " one delegate said . " Why ca n't they focus on all the good that came out of Cairo ? " I met an old friend in the hallway and she said to me , " I 'm so ashamed to be a Catholic . The Vatican -- especially as an observer state -- has no right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Five had two simultaneous tracks of sessions : the UN General Assembly and the Committee of the Whole . The first included the scheduled testimony of 191 nations , five observers , and five NGOs . Initially only fifty passes were made available for the NGOs at the General Assembly , despite 400 available seats , but a protest eventually yielded more . The second track was the Committee of the Whole , consisting of meetings of both large and small groups of NGOs and others . Since it was not possible to attend both tracks in their entirety , I listened to only a few General Assembly speakers and then attended the committee meetings . ( The General Assembly speeches and other relevant documents are available on the United Nations Population Fund website : www.unfpa.org ; select ICPD+5 . ) <p> There was considerable drama at the various NGO meetings since , as of July 1 , there still was no final document to be presented to the General Assembly for a vote . So when the NGOs learned they would be not be allowed to make presentations to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we sent a unanimous resolution to Didier Opertti , president of the General Assembly Special Session . The resolution observed that NGOs had been " crucial to the implementation of the Cairo+5 process " and resolved that " the President and the Bureau of the General Assembly Special Session assure that NGOs have an opportunity to speak in a Plenary Session . " Three eventually did . <p> A second event on July 1 that signaled the NGOs ' dissatisfaction with the obstructive practices at this gathering was the terse but extremely direct remarks of Daniel C. Maguire , professor of theology at Marquette University , delivered before the Committee of the Whole . Maguire is a Catholic theologian trained at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and is president of the Religious Consultation on Population , Reproductive Health , and Ethics , an international NGO consisting of over 100 theologians of the world 's major and indigenous religions . He accused the Vatican of " misrepresentation of the Catholic traditions and teachings on abortion , " stating that the Catholic church " has always housed a pro-choice , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cited as an example St. Antoninus , archbishop of Florence , " who in the fifteenth century defended a woman 's right to abortion if needed to save her life . " Maguire called upon Vatican officials to " stop their dogmatism , a dogmatism that offends many Catholics and most of the world 's religions . " He concluded by urging the Vatican to " surrender its privileged position at the United Nations . " The Holy See is the only religion that has Permanent Observer status at the UN . Maguire 's intervention was greeted with hearty applause . <p> A third event that day -- by far the most dramatic -- was the release of " An Open Letter to the Vatican , " initiated by women NGOs from Latin America and the Caribbean . In a series of direct and biting questions , they pressed the Vatican for answers : How can a church that holds life as a fundamental value be unmoved by the deaths of thousands of women , many of whom leave orphaned children ? Why do Vatican representatives insist that only parents can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexual health of young people when it is widely known that many cases of sexual abuse , particularly incest , take place in the heart of the home ? Given that the Vatican is not a nation-state , is not involved in the implementation of the Cairo Programme of Action , and , by its very nature , does not have women or children or sexual or reproductive problems , why is the Vatican delegation interested in blocking advances in contraception , sexual education , and HIV prevention that are beneficial to millions of women , especially to millions of the world 's poorest women ? Why do Vatican representatives to this conference , who speak about the problems of migrants and allocation of resources and who insist on respect for national sovereignty , seek to impose their religious ideas and moral rules on a world that is plural and diverse in its beliefs ? <p> This letter was originally signed by forty-seven Latin American and Caribbean organizations , from Mexico to Chile . Eighty-one other international NGOs from the women 's coalition also supported the letter . <p> One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , led by Frances Kissling , who has long been a critic of Vatican policy on women 's reproductive rights ( including birth control and abortion ) and social justice issues . Her leadership at Cairo Plus Five was very evident , and it was obvious that she and her organization enjoyed a great deal of respect and support from the NCO delegates . Kissling invited me to a luncheon at the UN for progressive religious NGOs . Several of the seventeen people present -- including Buddhists , Muslims , Catholics , Protestants , and Jews -- lamented the fact that so often all religions are tarred with the same reactionary brush as the Vatican on population and development issues . Participants noted that in various traditions , such as Muslim and Catholic , there is a wide array of viewpoints on women , birth control , and abortion . Indeed , as one of the NCO plenary speakers stated , " The biggest Catholic countries are in consensus about what compassionate Catholicism means " and that today " the Holy See can no longer speak for most Catholics . " @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Cairo Plus Five -- dawned , a final Programme of Action had not yet materialized . Clearly concerned that the Vatican 's obstructive practices might affect the success of this and future conferences , a letter signed by a vast majority of the NGOs was addressed to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan . The letter stated : <p> Regrettably , a process designed to be a review and appraisal of the implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action has become a reassessment of the fundamentals that were resoundingly agreed and firmly established in Cairo .... We believe that the review and appraisal mandated by the General Assembly has been diverted from its original intention during the preparatory process that led to the conference . <p> The letter concluded by asking the secretary-general to hold a " consultation " to review Cairo Plus Five and what impact it would have on the World Summit of Social Development and the Beijing Platform for Action . Diplomatically speaking , this and our previous letter to Didier Opertti constituted an almost open rebellion . <p> So how many battalions did the Vatican have at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a few but , by July 2 , the coalition of Catholic and Muslim delegations had collapsed . The Vatican 's alleged numerous NGOs at the conference surfaced visibly in force ( about twenty representatives ) only at a press briefing held with the U.S. Department of State across the street from the UN . But by late that afternoon , a final Programme of Action was approved . In the end , only Argentina , Nicaragua , and a few NGOs -- such as Right to Life International , the Catholic Family Rights Institute , and the Sovereign Military Order of Maltamstood with the Vatican to express " reservations " about the final document . Even the Muslims supported the Programme . The Vatican 's battalions were in retreat -- and bitter retreat at that . <p> In a most interesting final intervention , Archbishop Renato R. Martino , head of the Holy See delegation , actually accused others of seeking to undo the ICPD . He observed that negotiations at the Hague forum took <p> a step backward , placing unbalanced emphasis on population issues at the expense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it particularly disconcerting that some delegations , mainly from Western states , have sought in these negotiations to undo the careful balancing needed between adolescents ' need for privacy and confidentiality with parental rights , duties , and responsibilities-prior rights as affirmed in the Declaration on Human Rights . <p> After noting the Holy See 's reservations to the approved final document , Martino stated , " This does not mean that the Holy See can simply walk away from the work begun in Cairo , the work proceeding here and which will continue into the future . " But " walk away " is just what a great many NGOs want the Vatican to do . <p> So was Cairo Plus Five a success ? By all accounts it was . In his summary remarks to the General Assembly , Ambassador Anwarul Karim Chowhury of Bangladesh , president of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole of the special session , noted that reaching consensus had been " extraordinarily difficult " because delegates " repeatedly ran into contentious issues " in the course of negotiations . He noted that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts , and gives direction on how to proceed for achieving more . " Specifically , Chowhury noted that Cairo Plus Five led to a <p> focus on attaining more in our efforts for equality and empowerment of women ... emphatic pronouncements for women 's rights ... strong language for enduring discrimination against the girl child ... benefits of public-private partnership and collaboration with civil society . <p> Translation : the progressive forces won . <p> In the General Assembly , nation after nation affirmed the final Programme of Action and many commented on their own programs to limit population growth through development . NGOs -- especially women 's organizations -- overwhelmingly supported Cairo Plus Five and can take real satisfaction in knowing that , although the job has only begun , it is off to a good start . <p> And , above all , it will continue . <p> By Joseph J. Fahey <p> <p> Joseph J. Fahey is professor of religious studies and former director of the Peace Studies Program at Manhattan College in New York City . He serves , with Beth Lamont , on the NCO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . <p> 
##4001065 Section : Creative Controversy <p> In keeping with the policy of the Humanist to accommodate the diverse social , political , and philosophical viewpoints of its readers , this occasional feature allows for the expression of alter . native and dissenting views on issues previously discussed within these pages . <p> HUMANIST MANIFESTO II , first published in 1973 , outlines a humanistic world vision to help guide humankind toward the future . Building on the dramatic advances in science , technology , and evolving social and political changes , the manifesto declares that the next century should be the " humanistic century . " Among the seventeen principles affirmed is a call " to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate . " As we rapidly approach the new millennium , we need to examine the factors influencing the current international environment and seek to answer the following question : is the world community poised to make the next century the humanistic century ? THE QUESTION OF CULTURE <p> @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a world order based upon a transnational federal government that would appreciate diversity , cultural pluralism , and pride in national origin -- in effect , a global government grounded on a system of world law . Is this actually a feasible notion in today 's international environment ? With the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War , the bipolar -- and arguably more stable -- world in which we had grown accustomed to living ceased to exist . In its place is a much less predictable , more multipolar world -- one with many new actors now playing on the world stage . <p> Each of these actors possesses a unique cultural identity . But whose culture ? Culture -- or civilization , if one prefers -- encompasses the basic ways of a people that resist alteration and remain significant to following generations . Culture includes the shared norms , values , language , history , science , art , and religious views of a group . And unlike the relatively youthful nation-state system around which our modern world affairs revolve , many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humankind in the post-Cold War environment , Samuel P. Huntington hypothesizes in his summer 1993 Foreign Affairs article " The Clash of the Civilizations " that the fundamental source of future world conflict will primarily be cultural and between groups of different civilizations -- not exclusively between nation-states . Cultural identification does n't necessarily confine itself neatly within the borders of the established states but may transcend state borders , as is the case in the Balkans , or may include several nation-states , such as the Arab civilization . <p> How might culture be a source of future conflict ? The reasons are varied and may include differing views over politics , economics , and ethnicity , just to name a few . Perhaps the most compelling source , though , is religion . Each culture produces its own fundamental views of religion , and many of these views are the result of centuries in the making . <p> In the history of humanity , perhaps no other catalyst has generated the level of violence and conflict as has religion . Although differing religious views in and of themselves may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a look around the globe at several contemporary conflicts gives one pause to reflect otherwise . For instance : Catholic and Orthodox Christians fighting in the Balkans , both of them fighting Muslims ( and , most recently , Orthodox Christians carrying out near genocide against Muslims in Kosovo ) ; Muslims and Hindus fighting in India ; Muslims and Christians fighting in Egypt , Algeria , Azerbaijan , Indonesia , and Nigeria ; Christians and Muslims fighting in Lebanon ; Sunni Muslims and Shiites fighting in Iraq ; and Shiites and Baha'is fighting in Iran . The list goes on . <p> Cultural clashes and the seeming inability of humanity to overcome them present a daunting challenge for the future . In his winter 1996 Washington Quarterly article " Conflicts After the Cold War , " Joseph S. Nye Jr . maintains that cultural clashes can occur at three levels : over transnational identity , such as religion ; over national identity , as in Russia ; and on subnational identity based on linguistic , religious , or ethnic divisions , as in Africa or the former Yugoslavia . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , solutions to reduce this cultural strife at all three levels must first be found . IS WAR REALLY OBSOLETE ? <p> Humanist Manifesto II proclaims that the world community must renounce the resort to violence and force in solving international disputes and declares war and the use of weapons of mass destruction obsolete . Unfortunately , the world remains a very dangerous place and conflict abounds . In international relations theory , there are primarily two world views that help explain conflict : realism and liberalism . Realists assert that conflict results as states struggle with one another over power and security concerns in an anarchic world -- a world where there is no higher authority or ultimate arbiter . They claim that human beings have an instinctive desire to dominate each other and believe the furthering of national interests is supreme . Leery of international institutions or the idea of collective security , realists seek to tilt the balance of power in their favor . <p> Liberals , on the other hand , contend that conflict is not only influenced by power struggles but determined by the domestic structure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the belief in the democratic ideal . In effect , democratic states do n't go to war with one another ; rather , they rely on negotiation and dialogue to solve differences . Liberals believe international commerce and trade promote peace and maintain that international institutions increase the cooperation between nation-states . <p> According to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict , following the thawing of the Cold War in the years 1990-1997 , there were thirty-nine major world conflicts in which at least 1,000 deaths occurred in any one year . Although most scholars and policymakers agree the potential for global conflict has significantly lessened in today 's international environment , they also agree that great uncertainties still abound . Many world " hot spots " exist that could quickly escalate into small-scale or regional war . <p> For example , striving for self-determination , twenty million Kurds -- the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state -- are vying for a Kurdistan homeland carved from the countries of Iran , Iraq , Syria , and Turkey . In the former Soviet Union , Chechnya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and much anxiety lingers . The Arab-Israeli dispute remains a tinderbox in spite of extraordinary efforts to mediate events . India and Pakistan , the newest members of the nuclear club , have fought three wars and the Kashmir issue is still unresolved . Tensions continue to be high on the Korean Peninsula-as well as between China and Taiwan . Iraq remains a threat to its Middle East neighbors . The crisis in the Balkans and collapse of states in central Africa also give great pause for concern . <p> Always a contentious issue because of their horrific destructive potential , chemical , biological , and nuclear weapon concerns are of particular interest in today 's world . On the subject of nuclear weapons , John F. Spoko writes in his winter 1996-1997 Foreign Policy article " The Changing Proliferation Threat " : <p> The familiar balance of nuclear terror that linked the superpowers and their client states for nearly 50 years in a choreographed series of confrontations has given way to a much less predictable situation where weapons of unthinkable power appear within the grasp of those willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , terrorist groups , religious cults , ethnic minorities , disaffected political groups , and even individuals appear to have joined a new arms race toward mass destruction . <p> Fearful of being on the receiving end of an attack , nuclear-capable nations are going to be hard-pressed to completely eliminate their arsenal of weapons due to their perceived deterrent value . On the positive side , since 1989 the stockpile of Russian and U.S. nuclear warheads has been reduced by half , and when all three strategic arms reduction treaties ( START ) are implemented , roughly 80 percent of their strategic nuclear arsenals will be gone . Since both nations have signed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty , calling for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons , the START treaties are a key milestone in achieving a major principle of Humanist Manifesto IL <p> Unfortunately , the same can not be said of chemical and biological weapons . Known as the " poor man 's nuke , " these weapons do n't require the level of sophistication to manufacture as do nuclear weapons and , although many nations ( including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the outlook for their total elimination in the near future is far bleaker . Any rogue nation or faction that so desires can easily obtain weapons of this sort . <p> Is war really obsolete ? In theory , yes ; in reality , no . But this question does give rise to a third international relations world view : idealism , or globalism . Idealists view the world as a global community . Within the community , global institutions are formed leading to cooperation , security , and collective action . They believe in the universal rule of law and the rights of individuals everywhere . If this world view can ultimately be achieved in the next century , conceivably war may then become truly obsolete . SOVEREIGNTY AND NATIONAL SECURITY <p> Perhaps the biggest challenges in fulfilling the aims of Humanist Manifesto II are the issues of national sovereignty and national security . In the foreseeable future , it is difficult to imagine the international security environment evolving in such a manner that nations , such as the United States , would actually give up some degree of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world community is steadily moving in the direction of more cooperative intergovernmental relationships -- including the increased interaction of nongovernmental organizations , transnational corporations , and academia -- the circumstances to transcend the limits of national sovereignty have not yet been achieved . <p> Humanist Manifesto II maintains that it is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and direct this money toward more peaceful purposes . As the world 's only remaining superpower , the United States maintains a sizable military force . Yet according to recent polling data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research , nearly 75 percent of Americans feel the level of defense spending should remain at its current level and an additional 17 percent think it should be increased . It is important to note , however , that , as a result of the post-Cold War " peace dividend , " the United States , like many other nations , has already substantially reduced its defense expenditures and shifted this revenue into domestic and social programs . <p> Fundamental to humanist philosophy , and essential in the humanistic century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central premise in the guarantee of global human rights is a more open and democratic world . Promoting democracy abroad is one of three core objectives President Clinton says the United States seeks through its national security strategy . As a world leader , the United States must play a major role in spreading democratic ideals throughout the world , but can the democratic ground already won around the globe be maintained if the U.S. military does n't remain strong ? Can international security organizations fill the vacuum if the armed forces of the United States and other democratic nations are marginalized by further reductions in force and capability ? CONCLUSION <p> Is the world poised for the humanistic century ? In my opinion , not as described in Humanist Manifesto II and not in the immediate future . As the manifesto states , not everyone who endorses its content agrees with every detail . I 'm not convinced that we have reached a point in human history where the best option is to transcend national sovereignty . The world remains a dangerous and capricious place with widely divergent ideological and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences and achieve a greater degree of harmony must be demonstrated before we can move forward . <p> Perhaps humankind 's best course of action is for the world 's democratic states to maintain as much dialogue as possible with other nondemocratic states . The recent addition of three former Warsaw Pact nations -- Hungary , Poland , and the Czech Republic -- to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization demonstrates how the spread of democratic values and political and economic freedom can help lead the world in a direction more in line with humanist thought . It is in this sense that the next century has the potential to be the humanistic century . <p> Editor 's note : In our September/October and November/December 1998 issues , we published a twenty-fifth anniversary symposium on Humanist Manifesto II that analyzes the document and suggests changes . Then , in our July/August 1999 issue , we boldly proposed that humanity can end war in the next century . Now we publish an alternative viewpoint that calls into question not so much the value but the feasibility and likelihood of such humanist ideals setting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kenneth O. Lynn <p> <p> Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth O. Lynn is an eighteen-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force and currently serves on the faculty of its Air Command and Staff College teaching in the international securities and military studies department . The views expressed here are solely his and do not reflect the position of the U.S. Air Force . Humanist Manifestos I and II may be downloaded from the American Humanist Association 's website , www.humanist.net , in accordance with copyright laws . <p> 
##4001066 Section : CIVIL LIBERTIES WATCH <p> On June 17 , by a 248 to 180 vote , the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill permitting states to display the Ten Commandments in public schools . At a press conference , a cosponsor of the bill , Georgia Republican Bob Barr , said that if the Ten Commandments had been posted at Columbine High School the April 20 massacre never would have occurred . The bill 's primary sponsor , Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt , called it " a first step " in " reinstilling the value of human life . " <p> This ridiculous measure has now gone to the Senate , where its chances of actual passage are slim . And I 'm sure most readers know that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled definitively that it is not permissible to post the Ten Commandments in public schools . <p> So how is it possible that 248 members of the House could do a thing like this ? How is it that these legislators , along with more than a billion people across the globe ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Universalists ) , firmly believe that the basic guidelines for civil society are encapsulated in these ten biblical pronouncements ? Perhaps more to the point , where could anyone get the absurd idea that the Ten Commandments instill " the value of human life " ? <p> Yet it is because of these widely held beliefs that civil libertarians must exert the energy and suffer the frustration of repeatedly countering government advocacy of the Ten Commandments on obvious church-state separation grounds . And that 's why I think it 's time to change our strategy and challenge the actual content of this and similar proposals involving scriptural injunctions . <p> The truth is that none of the commandments have anything positive to say about the value of human life . Not only does the Decalogue not teach this , it bluntly tells people to devalue their own lives , as well as the lives of their fellow human beings . The blatantly obvious and straightforward presentation of this message in the Ten Commandments leaves me convinced that the reason millions of people accept religionists ' false claims about them is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ripe for correction by freethinkers . Who better to focus the light of reason and common sense on the true nature of religious doctrine ? <p> To begin , then , the Bible itself contains at least two different versions of these " rules written in stone . " There are also numerous English translations from the original Hebrew . These deviations present serious problems in and of themselves . To keep this simple , I 'll quote the Protestant King James Version and the wording of the commandments as found in Exodus 20:1-17 . ( A variant wording appears in Deuteronomy 5:6-21 while a significantly different Ten Commandments shows up in Exodus 34:1-28 . ) And I 'll number the commandments the way Christians do instead of the way Jews do , assuming they 've been revealed to us in their order of importance . <p> The first commandment states : " Thou shalt have no other gods before me . " Now that seems pretty clear . The most important requirement for living a moral life on Earth is that we bow down before one particular god and no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the age-old arguments , pogroms , and religious wars over which god is the " true " god , it instructs us , first and foremost , to abdicate our freedom , our self-responsibility , our very lives to some invisible supernatural entity . Yes indeed , the value of human life certainly resonates in this one ! <p> The second commandment , in short form , reads : " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image . " But in the Bible it goes on : " or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above , or that is in the earth beneath , or that is in the water under the earth : Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them , nor serve them . " While there are many interpretations of these directives by various religious factions , let 's assume the simplest meaning : " Do n't make images of anything and do n't worship images of anything . " Now why should this be the second most important moral principle for all humanity to follow ? Robert Ingersoll noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . " Killing art is hardly a way to promote the value of human life . <p> God establishes a special punishment for disobedience of this commandment that , amazingly , never shows up in any of those tidy schoolhouse lists of the Ten Commandments . This is a particularly foolhardy omission given the extreme consequences of insubordination . As part of his commandment , God says , " For I , the Lord thy God , am a jealous God , visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me " -- this is the stick , followed by the carrot -- " and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me , and keep my commandments . " <p> Yes , indeed , instilling the value of human life is obviously what 's going on here ! All the way down to and including the innocent great , great grandchildren of anyone who disobeys this all-important commandment of human morality . What could be more obviously godlike and supremely just than inflicting a family curse on four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ art and maybe even admired them . And , gosh , is n't jealousy an exemplary emotion for a perfect God to so proudly proclaim ? <p> The third commandment states : " Thou shalt not take the name of the do n't say " Christ Almighty ! " We must n't be uttering any of his proper names in any context other than respectful reverence-since proper decorum here is so critical to the morality of all humanity . <p> Knowing the origin of this commandment , and the previous one , is helpful here . That origin can be found in sympathetic magic , where an image or name of a person is believed to carry part of her or his soul . Any injury to the image or denouncement of the name is thought to produce a consequent injury to the person . By making it taboo for people to create graven images or to utter curses against names , enemies are denied powerful , secret weapons . Some ancient peoples went further , believing that natural disasters were caused by misusing the names of gods . <p> The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember the sabbath day , to keep it holy . " But there 's much more to it that must be examined : <p> Six days shalt thou labor , and do all thy work : But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do any work ; thou , nor thy son , nor thy daughter , thy manservant , nor thy maidservant , nor thy cattle , nor thy stranger that is within thy gates : For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth , the sea , and all that in them is , and rested the seventh day : wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day , and hallowed it . <p> If the worst this commandment did was promote the silliness of " creation science , " we could consider ourselves fortunate . But Violation of this commandment could prove fatal . <p> Throughout the Old Testament , many acts prohibited on the sabbath are specifically spelled out -- along with the penalty , which is death by stoning . Numbers 15:32-36 recounts one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day . " So every seventh calendar day , you must do no work . Your animals must do no work . Even your slaves must do no work . Yes , that 's what manservants and maidservants were -- slaves . ( This is one of two times slavery is tacitly endorsed in the actual body of the Ten Commandments . ) Clearly , this commandment joins the first three in instilling the value of human life ! <p> The fifth commandment reads : " Honor thy father and thy mother : that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee . " The land referred to is the " Promised Land , " which was the bond between the " Chosen People " and their God . There fore , any breakdown in the family , in tribal solidarity -- especially if caused by a family member following other gods or marrying outside the faith -- could theoretically jeopardize the tribe 's right to the land and , hence , its relationship with the deity . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was death ( see Deuteronomy 13:6-11 ) . <p> In Leviticus 19:3 we are told that everyone is to fear their mother and father in the same way they fear God . Parents thus become vice-regents of the Almighty . No exceptions to the fifth commandment are noted , so even severe physical , emotional , or sexual abuse at the hands of one 's parents would n't alter one 's responsibility to " honor " them . <p> Now we 've made our way down to the short " shalt nots " that most people think of when the subject of the Decalogue comes up . These are the sixth , seventh , and eighth commandments . Thou shalt not : kill ( unless , of course , God tells you to , which he frequently does in the Bible ) ; commit adultery ( which , though punishable by death in Leviticus and Deuteronomy , has been interpreted differently by different sects -- given all the philandering by biblical heroes , the polygamy practiced by some of the Israelites , and the use of harems by biblical kings ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous two , is problematic because God does n't supply any guidelines for applying it . But if we turn to Proverbs 6:30-31 , we find the punishment harsh and absolute : " Men do not despise a thief , if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry ; But if he be found , he shall restore sevenfold ; he shall give all the substance of his house . " <p> The ninth commandment says : " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor . " If you think this embodies a basically sound moral principle , note the last three words . They make it clear that this commandment was n't designed for universal application . <p> Under Talmudic law , only a fellow Hebrew was a neighbor . Indeed , as Joseph Lewis wrote in The Ten Commandments , " All the Commandments belong in the same category and were promulgated for one purpose -- to prevent injury to the clan and to promote tribal solidarity . " One could willfully violate the commandments where " foreigners " were concerned . Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply the ninth commandment more broadly , it still fails to enjoin general lying or advance general honesty . This is because , taken literally , it only prohibits false testimony against another person . There is no commandment against lying , per se . <p> Finally , we come to the tenth commandment . In short form , it reads : " Thou shalt not covet . " But the verse goes on to say , " thy neighbor 's house ... thy neighbor 's wife , nor his manservant , nor his maidservant , nor his ox , nor his ass , nor any thing that is thy neighbor 's . " Again , this only relates to one 's " neighbor " ( and it constitutes another tacit endorsement of men owning wives and slaves ) . <p> But suppose we actually applied it more generally , what then ? Why , it would fly directly in the face of the basic underpinnings of capitalism . Where would our great supernation be without that fundamental longing to possess the things other people have ? Has it occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would virtually require the United States to adopt a communist or socialist economic system ? Furthermore , this commandment seeks to create and punish " thought crime . " But how are we to determine whether a person has actually engaged in this covert crime of coveting ? <p> Well , there you have them -- straight from the divinely inspired word of God -- the ten moral principles by which all humanity should live , the best and obvious way to instill the value of human life in American youth . Like Ingersoll , I 'm amazed at just what a pathetic list of " moral guidelines " we find here and ca n't help thinking how easily it could have been better . As Ingersoll put it : <p> If Jehovah had been civilized , he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath and in its place said , " Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow men . " He would have omitted the one about swearing and said : " The man shall have but one wife , and the woman but one husband . @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ images and in its stead would have said : " Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination , and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defense . " If Jehovah had been civilized , how much grander the Ten Commandments would have been ! <p> It 's time for someone to say this again . So long as no one challenges the content of religious pronouncements like the Ten Commandments , we 'll continue to divert time and energy from important matters to counter the attempts of conservative religionists to force biblical law on American society . The Ten Commandments are immoral and unfit for teaching to children in any decent society . Humanists and freethinkers , of all people , should have the consistency and bravery to say so . <p> By Barbara Dority <p> <p> Barbara Dority is president of Humanists of Washington , executive director of the Washington Coalition Against Censorship , and cochair of the Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force . <p> 